Whoa, am I psychic?

[Reno]

Everyone spell out what they would like Randi to do to make amends.

I would have been satisfied if he had posted on this week's Swift something like:

To all forumites and particularly to Hawkeye: Last week I made a grave error. I published someone else's words and thoughts without acknowledging them. Even worse, I changed some of the words to make it look like I had come up with these ideas myself. While I did actually have the same (or at least very similar) thoughts - as I'm sure most critical thinking skeptics do, I should not have changed a few bits of the original author's post. What I should have done, is reproduced Hawkeye's post in Swift, crediting him with the original prose.

I did not at the time realise what a stir this would cause, because I really didn't realise the high regard in which most forumites hold me. I now see that my error was much more important than I realised, and I now apologise, unreservedly to all who feel aggrieved in any way.

In future, I will make sure that any words I publish on Swift that are not my own will be acknowledged and accredited to the original author.

Now, can we move on?

 

[Reno]

Darat, so far, you are the only person that has posted on this thread, to my knowledge, who thinks that 'barking forum watchdogs' is a compliment.

 

[Darat]

Again, I have. He needs to explain how something like this happened. I cannot support an organization where lifting another person's work uncredited occationally happens due to sloppy work habits, and then no corrective action is taken (or even expected!)

Then surely you can't support any organisation ever?

Randi is (I'm almost certain) only human and therefore he will make errors, he is an author writing a weekly column.

What happens if the phone rings just as he was about to add a "thanks to delphi_ote" to finish a SWIFT, the phone conversation is something urgent he has to deal with, Jeff is saying if you want the commentary up today I have to have it now, Linda is asking for a cheque to be signed and he forgets to adds it and the article gets published? That is sloppy working practices that's just life.

To me what is important is what you do afterwards when you've made such a mistake and that's what I don't understand in some of the reactions since to me his apology and explanation seems very clear cut.

 

[Darat]

Darat, so far, you are the only person that has posted on this thread, to my knowledge, who thinks that 'barking forum watchdogs' is a compliment.

Seriously - don't you consider watchdogs the good guys?

 

[delphi_ote]

E.g. Perhaps all Randi did was when he first read the post was think "that's it", he highlighted the post in his browser, hit CTRL-C, moved to his draft of SWIFT pasted it into that, then later on (perhaps even a couple of days later who knows) when he is working on his draft he reworked the text without remembering that it was someone else's work he needed to credit.

Now I am not saying this is what happened just showing how there are explanations that would mean Randi did make as he put an "innocent mistake".

I'm sure it was an innocent mistake. Why were we not treated to this kind of explaination?

(I also suspect that Randi could not offer a better explanation then he has done simply because time has moved on, how could he reconstruct how he actually created a particular SWIFT?)

Then say he could simply say, "I'm not sure how exactly this happened, but I'll look into it and be more careful in the future." Transparency isn't all that difficult. Instead, we were brushed off and told, Randi "won’t be losing any sleep over it."

Considering that he has so publicly admitted he made a mistake I do have to say I consider the explanations that do not require Randi lying in either his apology and clarification or being deliberately dishonest more likely than the ones that require him to have deliberately acted in a dishonest manner and then lied about it.

I never made such an accusation or implication. If you're going to jump on me about my posts, you'd better read what I'm saying. I have no reason to suspect that Randi has been anything but honest. My problem is that he's not handling the situation now very well. The way to put people's minds at ease is honesty, transparency, and sincere apology, not "Gimme a break, folks."

 

[Reno]

to me his apology and explanation seems very clear cut.

Yeah? Well I still can't even see an apology. I can only see mea culpa

 

[Darat]

I would have been satisfied if he had posted on this week's Swift something like:

To all forumites and particularly to Hawkeye: Last week I made a grave error. I published someone else's words and thoughts without acknowledging them. Even worse, I changed some of the words to make it look like I had come up with these ideas myself.

Regarding the part I've put in bold - you are having to make assumptions that this was the reason. I've provided an explanation that also fits the facts that does not require Randi to have acted in such a dishonest manner.

While I did actually have the same (or at least very similar) thoughts - as I'm sure most critical thinking skeptics do, I should not have changed a few bits of the original author's post. What I should have done, is reproduced Hawkeye's post in Swift, crediting him with the original prose.

Or perhaps just provided a credit it in a different way?

I did not at the time realise what a stir this would cause, because I really didn't realise the high regard in which most forumites hold me. I now see that my error was much more important than I realised, and I now apologise, unreservedly to all who feel aggrieved in any way.

...snip...

Again this only follows if you assume Randi acted in a dishonest manner.

 

[Reno]

Seriously - don't you consider watchdogs the good guys?

They might well be, but what I got (and apparently others did too) from this phrase was that we are yapping little pains in the arse.

 

[delphi_ote]

Then surely you can't support any organisation ever?

Most organizations would make an attempt to understand what went wrong where and fix it! I worked for a non-profit. We didn't just shrug our shoulders when we screwed up.

To me what is important is what you do afterwards when you've made such a mistake and that's what I don't understand in some of the reactions since to me his apology and explanation seems very clear cut.

What happens afterwards has been my entire point, Darat. Are you actually reading the words I'm typing?

 

[Darat]

I'm sure it was an innocent mistake. Why were we not treated to this kind of explaination?

As I said later on in my post - perhaps Randi cannot honestly provide such an explanation given the time that has passed.

Then say he could simply say, "I'm not sure how exactly this happened, but I'll look into it and be more careful in the future." Transparency isn't all that difficult. Instead, we were brushed off and told, Randi "won’t be losing any sleep over it."

Hang on a mo' he did say what you want him to have said - see the bold section:

"Last week, rushing to get SWIFT together, I downloaded, edited, vetted, stored, juggled, and otherwise handled the huge amount of text that I have to organize in order to produce this page every week. In the process, I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent, Chris Calvey, with some text that quite well described what I had to say about a certain item."

I never made such an accusation or implication.

And I never said you did.

If you're going to jump on me about my posts,

Er where have I "jumped" on your posts? I made a reply to your post.

I have no reason to suspect that Randi has been anything but honest. My problem is that he's not handling the situation now very well. The way to put people's minds at ease is honesty, transparency, and sincere apology, not "Gimme a break, folks."

Which I think he has done...

 

[Darat]

Most organizations would make an attempt to understand what went wrong where and fix it! I worked for a non-profit. We didn't just shrug our shoulders when we screwed up.

And Randi didn't just shrug his shoulders - he took the time to add a whole section into the very next SWIFT.

What happens afterwards has been my entire point, Darat. Are you actually reading the words I'm typing?

I'm reading yours, you however do not seem to be reading mine.

 

[Darat]

They might well be, but what I got (and apparently others did too) from this phrase was that we are yapping little pains in the arse.

So we have a difference of opinion - I'm quite chuffed that he thinks we are watchdogs that will alert him to his mistakes.

 

[Reno]

Darat,

I was asked by The Vampire to spell out what I would like Randi to do to make amends. If you read the first line of my post in response, it says "I would have been satisfied if he had posted on this week's Swift something like"

I know Randi is a much better wordsmith than a humble working class fellow like me. That's why I used the word "like"

No need to pick apart my post. I'm just disappointed that a working class guy can see the right thing to post when a man of such importance as Randi either can't, or won't.

 

[delphi_ote]

Which I think he has done...

"Gimme a break, folks." was a direct quote from Randi's SWIFT commentary.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

I know Randi is a much better wordsmith than a humble working class fellow like me. That's why I used the word "like"

I made no criticism of your wordsmithship - I am in no position to do so.

No need to pick apart my post. I'm just disappointed that a working class guy can see the right thing to post when a man of such importance as Randi either can't, or won't.

Please read what I wrote about your post. What you asked for in the example apology only made sense if you start with the assumption that Randi attempted to get away with something dishonest. If he hadn't acted in a dishonest way but just made a mistake then the type of apology you asked for just wouldn't be appropriate.

Anyway I'm unsubscirbing from this thread as it seems to be getting rather overheated which is a shame especially since all we are doing is trying to explain our differences of opinion to one another.

 

[delphi_ote]

Hang on a mo' he did say what you want him to have said - see the bold section:

"Last week, rushing to get SWIFT together, I downloaded, edited, vetted, stored, juggled, and otherwise handled the huge amount of text that I have to organize in order to produce this page every week. In the process, I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent, Chris Calvey, with some text that quite well described what I had to say about a certain item."

No. That is not an admission that he is unsure of how this happened. That is a very vague attempt at explaining what happened. Randi also gave no indication he intends to take corrective action. If other people's work appeared in my work by accident, I'd certainly start examining my work habits. And I'd certainly make a public statement that I was doing so.

 

[BillyJoe]

Randi:

In the process, I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent, Chris Calvey, with some text that quite well described what I had to say about a certain item.

BillyJoe:

Sorry, but this is not correct.

Unless you have access to his thoughts you can't say this is incorrect, you can hold that in your opinion he is lying but you can't know that.

Actually, I didn't say he was lying. That is your word. Trying not to be inflammatory, I said "sorry, but this is not correct".

Depends on the type of credit he would have made doesn't it?

Yes, someone already pointed that out to me and I have acknowledged that.

Seems the best spin that can be put on this whole thing is that Randi used Hawkeye's words that contained opinions that exactly mirrored his own, changed these posts to make it sound as if he wrote them himself, intended to add a note crediting Hawkeye for these opinions, and forgot to do so.

But, hey, I still don't get why he would do such a thing!
Why not directly quote and credit? Hawkeye's words read no better after the alterations. They just look like they were written by Randi.

Well as I showed above he does not describe the forumites as "barking watchdogs" - and as I said above I'm quite proud if he considers people here as watchdogs.

Perhaps we should have a poll - no, forget I said that!
Randi said "Now, the Forum watchdogs have begun barking at this innocent error". Both "watchdogs" and "barking" sound derogatory to me. The word "Now" and the phrase "innocent error" add to that impression. I don't know, I think it's pretty clear what he meant. I doubt he would even deny it.

I've not responded to the rest of your post because it is after all the explanation you have for why you consider Randi a liar and I admit I really don't want to get into that type of discussion, at least at the moment.

Okay. But, please, I'm not making accusations, I'm just trying to understand this thing.

 

[Reno]

If he hadn't acted in a dishonest way but just made a mistake then the type of apology you asked for just wouldn't be appropriate

I disagree. The type of apology required would have been something like the italic section I posted in response to The Vampire whether Randi's mistake was inadvertent or not. If one makes a mistake, one should apologise. Or am I being too British?

 

[baron]

So we have a difference of opinion - I'm quite chuffed that he thinks we are watchdogs that will alert him to his mistakes.

The phrase "forum watchdogs" was used in a derogatory manner in much the same way as "forum police" is an insult even though most people hold the police in high regard.

And Randi didn't just shrug his shoulders - he took the time to add a whole section into the very next SWIFT.

The purpose of the SWIFT editorial was purely to criticise those who had spoken out against Randi, nothing more.

 

[The Atheist]

... he did say what you want him to have said - see the bold section:

"Last week, rushing to get SWIFT together, I downloaded, edited, vetted, stored, juggled, and otherwise handled the huge amount of text that I have to organize in order to produce this page every week. In the process, I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent, Chris Calvey, with some text that quite well described what I had to say about a certain item."

(My emphasis in red)

Correct me if my impression is wrong, but that suggests to that lots of stuff is lifted from elsewhere.